Two primary objectives of automobile engine control systems are to maximize engine performance, such as power for passing, etc., and to minimize fuel consumption. Rough running engines affect both power output and fuel economy adversely. Onboard monitoring and control systems should be able to detect and, in some instances, correct for such roughness. Roughness may be due to incomplete burning of fuel in one or more cylinders. Extreme engine roughness occurs during cylinder misfire, that is, when no fuel is burned in one or more cylinders. Misfire can occur for several reasons, including lack of spark from the ignition system, malfunctioning of the fuel injection system, lack of sufficient air intake, faulty valves, etc.
While detection of roughness and misfiring during vehicle operation is highly desirable from the standpoints of performance and fuel economy, it has significant environmental impact as well. Incomplete burning of fossil fuels is a prime source of air pollution. An engine which misfires only 2% of the time, for example, may produce pollutant levels which exceed emission standards by 150%.
Governmental regulations covering emissions caused by cylinder misfire are being proposed. For example, the state of California has already notified automakers that beginning with the 1994 model year, vehicles sold in California must have onboard means for detecting and warning of cylinder misfire. Such means must be capable of identifying which particular cylinder is misfiring, or in the case of multiple cylinder misfire, indicating that more than one cylinder is misfiring. California regulators have also stated they would prefer a system which could additionally: determine precisely which cylinders are misfiring in the case of multiple misfires; identify sporadic, non-periodic misfiring events; detect isolated misfires occurring a small percentage of the time, for example, 1 misfire for every 1,000 or more firings; and function properly under all engine speeds and driving conditions. Other states, as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have indicated that they may issue cylinder misfire regulations similar to those proposed for California.
Prior art devices for roughness and misfire detection in internal combustion engines have utilized several different approaches. For example, the measurement of rotational speed (RPM) fluctuations is disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,843,870 to Citron et al., and 4,932,379 to Tang et al.; and SAE papers #900232 by Plapp et al., #890486 by Citron et al., and #890884 by Rizzoni.
Detecting roughness and misfire has also been attempted by determining the absence of a spark in the ignition system as disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,886,029 to Lill et al. and 4,928,228 to Fujimoto. The spark plug has also been used as a plasma probe as described in Johnson and Rado, "Monitoring Combustion Quality in Internal Combustion Engines Using Spark Plug as s Plasma Probe," IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology Vol VT-24, No 2, May 1975.
Sensing temperature at the exhaust port of each cylinder is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,939,711 to Hanaoka. Using non-magnetostrictive torque sensing and speed measurements is disclosed in SAE paper #890485 by Mauer et al. A generic torque sensor and comparing mean or maximum versus minimum torque signals (and typically other signals such as RPM, accelerator depression level, etc.) to expected values stored in computer memory, is disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,606,005 to Ribbens, and 4,940,030 to Morikawa. Monitoring exhaust chemistry, such as with a Lambda oxygen sensor in the exhaust flow, is taught in SAE paper #900232 by Plapp et al.
Each of these prior art approaches has disadvantages and it is likely that none may meet the strict standards that the California regulators and others seek. For example, rotational speed fluctuation detection is computationally intensive, is typically limited to engine speeds below 3500 to 4000 RPM, and has difficulty detecting non-repetitive misfires. Moreover, engine speed detection is subject to false alarms for vehicles operating on rough roads. A rough road will induce speed changes into the engine driveline at the drive wheels, irrespective of any engine misfire. These road induced speed changes will effectively mask the changes in speed that may be caused by engine misfire.
Detecting the absence of a spark will not detect misfire if the misfire is caused by fuel injection, valve, or other mechanical malfunctions. Plasma probing, temperature sensing, and exhaust gas chemistry sensing are all too slow and, heretofore, impractical for detecting low percentage misfire states. Further, exhaust gas sensing cannot identify which cylinder, or cylinders, are faulty. Torque sensing using non-magnetostrictive torque sensors are typically too large and unwieldy--often also requiring two or more monitoring locations along the crankshaft. Non-magnetostrictive torque sensors, such as strain gauge torque sensors, are impractical for mass production and extensive usage. U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,606,005 and 4,940,030 disclose using generic torque sensors; however, to the best of Applicants' knowledge, no such sensors currently exist which have proven suitable for automobile engine torque onboard monitoring.
A number of researchers have attempted to develop magnetostrictive torque sensors. Magnetostrictive torque sensors take advantage of the magnetostrictive property of ferromagnetic materials whereby tension stress in the material causes an increase in an induced magnetic field B in the material. Compressive stress causes a decrease in the induced magnetic field B. Typically an alternating current carrying coil is used to induce the magnetic field B into a ferromagnetic torque transmitting shaft. A secondary pickup coil, or other means, then monitors the change in the induced magnetic field B as the stress of the shaft changes with torque. The voltage signal generated across the secondary coil is an indicator of the torque. Specific geometry and the number of coils may vary for different magnetostrictive torque sensor designs, but the underlying principle is the same.
Typical magnetostrictive torque sensors are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,760,745 to Gashelis; 2,912,642 to Dahle; 4,414,856 to Winterhof; 4,589,290 to Sugiyama; 4,697,459 to Nonomura et al.; 4,939,937 to Klauber et al.; and application Ser. No. 07/518,083, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,144,846 to Klauber et al. The sensor disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,760,745, for example, is a four solenoidal coil design which is inherently larger and is, therefore, typically more expensive and less suited for automotive application than the other types of magnetostrictive torque sensors. The other sensors may be miniaturized and are less expensive, but are limited by the random anisotropic variations in magnetic permeability of the iron and steel materials used in production crankshafts and driveshafts. These variations are inherent in the material and distort any measured induced magnetic field changes thereby resulting in inaccuracies and prohibiting the instantaneous monitoring of the power variations for individual cylinder misfiring or firing events.
Applicants are currently unaware of any system for roughness or misfire detection which is completely satisfactory. Moreover, Applicants are unaware of any system which may satisfy more stringent environmental regulations, such as those pending in California.